On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
--mav
Dear all,
Most of you would be aware of some of the discussions that have occurred
around Wikipedia in the Norwegian languages. Since the last round of
discussions on this list, there has been a lot of internal debate, as
well as what seems to be a fairly widely accepted agreement following
voting.
This e-mail intends to, after a brief recap on Norwegian language and
wikipedia issues, take those interested through the latest development
and will stake out the road ahead. It is also intended to inform the
international community about the current agreement on no.wikipedia, so
as to prevent misunderstandings in the future.
Finally, we will mention an unfortunate reaction to the vote by a small
number of users at the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål (no:) wikipedia who want
to disregard the result of the voting and are planning to create a
_third_ Norwegian wikipedia with the sole mission of mixing the contents
of the two current Norwegian versions.
== A short language history of Norway ==
Spoken Norwegian ("norsk") (ISO 639-2 alpha-2 code "no") is in a fairly
unique situation compared to most other languages of the world in that
it has two widely accepted written standards, Bokmål (ISO 639-2 alpha-2
code "nb") and Nynorsk (ISO 639-2 alpha-2 code "nn"). By national
legislation they are both regarded as official written forms of
Norwegian. In addition, many people still make a distinction between
Bokmål and its precursor which still is in use, Riksmål.
Briefly speaking, Bokmål and Riksmål are descendants of the Danish
written language. Until the 1800s, Danish was the only widely used
written language in Norway as a result of four centuries of union with
Denmark. With increasing independence came a wish to norwegianise the
Danish standard, with Knud Knudsen at the forefront for changing parts
of the vocabulary and orthographics. Thus, Riksmål, and later Bokmål,
resulted. These forms together are today probably used by about 90% of
Norway's population, or somewhere around 3,500,000 people.
Parallel to this development, a new written standard was created by Ivar
Aasen. He travelled extensively throughout Norway, and based his new
language, landsmål, on the grammar and vocabulary of dialect samples
from around the country. This was later renamed Nynorsk. Modern Nynorsk
differs significantly from modern Bokmål, and may be linguistically
looked upon as as different (or as similar if you like) as Swedish is to
Danish. For English or Dutch/German speakers, the differences may be
likened to those between (Lowland) Scots and English or Low German and
Dutch. Today it is estimated that about 500,000-600,000 people have
Nynorsk as their first written language.
More information about the Norwegian language history can be found in
English, German, French, Spanish or Portuguese on the website of the
Norwegian Language Council:
http://www.sprakrad.no/templates/Page.aspx?id=653
== A short history of Wikipedia in Norwegian ==
The first Norwegian wikipedia started 26 November 2001 on the subdomain
no.wikipedia.org. As most wikipedias, its contributor and article count
started really picking up around the end of 2003. At the time, it
accepted all written standards of Norwegian, although the amount of
Nynorsk was minimal. There were already several debates about the
feasibilty and appropriateness of keeping the two languages united on
one Wikipedia. On 31 July 2004 a Wikipedia for Nynorsk was created.
The creation of nn:, however, split the community at no: wikipedia. Many
felt that given that Nynorsk now had its own wikipedia, no: should
become a Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia only. Others disapproved and claimed
that there was no need to change and that it should continue its
language policy of accepting all and keep its interwiki link name of
"Norsk".
Nynorsk Wikipedia soon proved a success, as it within the next few
months gathered several people who had felt uncomfortable in the
(mainly) Bokmål environment at no:. The name displayed in interwiki
links became "Norsk (nynorsk)" (languages are not spelt with upper case
in Norwegian). To date it continues to be one of the fastest growing
wikipedias, with a steady article increase, now at over 6000 articles
and >50 editors with more than 10 edits since arrival.
== Votes ==
The issue of no:'s language policy has come up time and again, and a
vote was held in March ([[:no:Wikipedia:Målform]]) as to which policy to
adapt. Independent of the method of the tally (whether or not to include
new contributors etc.) there was a majority for switching to a
Bokmål/Riksmål only language policy (50% for Bokmål/Riksmål, 43.2% for
Bokmål/Riksmål/Nynorsk/Høgnorsk, and 6.8% for the official variants
Bokmål/Nynorsk only).
Following this result, there is now going to be a vote on which
interwiki link name will most appropriately reflect the current language
policy of no:. The result of this vote will most likely be either "Norsk
(bokmål)" or "Norsk (bokmål/riksmål)".
Understandably, there has also been a debate as to whether the subdomain
should change from "no" to "nb", as this is the correct representation
of Bokmål according to ISO 639-2. However, there is some resentment
towards such a move and currently a general acceptance in letting the
Bokmål wikipedia stay at "no". The alternative some have suggested is a
server-side redirect from "no" to "nb", in the same way that "nb" today
is a server-side redirect to the equivalent page on "no".
== Summary of the problem ==
Unfortunately, a small group of users (who all write Bokmål/Riksmål) are
ignoring the results from the vote, and are claiming they want to
re-establish a wikipedia for all written standards of Norwegian. They
claim they have been in touch with people centrally in Wikimedia
(developers? stewards?) and that they have so far received positive
comments. With this email, we would like to state the fact that there
have been no official decisions about creating a third Norwegian
wikipedia containing both Bokmål and Nynorsk, it is merely an unofficial
initiative from a small group of users which started a sign-on list at
[[:no:Bruker:Norsk_Wikipedia]]. A spontaneous list with signatures
against this activity was immediately created at
[[:no:Wikipedia-diskusjon:Fellesnorsk]]. The process of creating a third
Norwegian wikipedia has not gone through a voting process in any of the
two existing Norwegian wikipedias (no: and nn:) and can not be
considered as a decision by the Norwegian Wikipedia community.
We believe the creation of a third wikipedia under the Wikimedia
foundation would have a serious and unfortunate impact on the existing
wikipedias in Norwegian, no: and nn:, and would undermine Wikipedia's
reputation in Norway. This being said, we are all for extensive co-
operation between the four Scandinavian language wikipedias (including
Swedish and Danish), as evident by the recent creation of
[[:meta:Skanwiki]], the Scandinavian meta-pages, and the use of featured
articles from neighbour wikipedias.
== Conclusion ==
Hopefully, this letter will help people better understand the
complicated language situation of the Norwegian Wikipedia community, so
as to give a background on which discussion can take place on this list
in the future, such as the inevitable debate following a possible
request for a re-establishment of the common (and third!) Norwegian
Wikipedia.
>From the community of no.wikipedia.org and nn.wikipedia.org,
Bjarte Sørensen [[:meta:User:BjarteSorensen]] (Administrator/bureaucrat on nn:)
Lars Alvik [[:no:User:Profoss]] (Administrator/bureaucrat on no:)
Øyvind A. Holm [[:no:User:Sunny256]] (Administrator on no:)
Onar Vikingstad [[:no:User:Vikingstad]] (Administrator on no:)
Jon Harald Søby [[:no:User:Jhs]] (Administrator on no:)
Chris Nyborg [[:no:User:Cnyborg]] (Administrator on no:)
Guttorm Flatabø [[:no:User:Dittaeva]] (Administrator on nn:)
Gunleiv Hadland [[:meta:User:Gunnernett]] (Administrator on nn:)
Jarle Fagerheim [[:nn:User:Jarle]] (Administrator on nn:)
Øyvind Jo Heimdal Eik [[:en:User:Pladask]] (Administrator on nn: and no:)
Kristian André Gallis [[:nn:User:Kristaga]]
Vegard Wærp [[:no:User:Vegardw]]
Nina Aldin Thune [[:no:User:Nina]]
Thor-Rune Hansen [[:no:User:ThorRune]]
Claes Tande [[:no:User:Ctande]]
Arnt-Erik Krokaa [[:no:User:AEK]]
Rune Sattler [[:no:User:Shauni]]
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 19:32, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of
> discussions. I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if I
> asked. I asked, and was denied. Until IRC commits itself to openness, it
> should have little to no impact on any facet of our project. Without searchable
> archives, IRC is not open in the modern sense, regardless of who or how
> you can join it, or view it. The archives of this mailing list are
> searchable.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:46, <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Why couldn't the logs be released to the public ?
Wikimedia's IRC channels have a (very) long-standing no public logging
policy with the argument that IRC is not on-wiki and the extra freedom
of no logs encourages people to float ideas that they might not
otherwise dare to suggest. There are other arguments too.
There are plenty of us that disagree with this policy despite being in
the front line in enforcing it, including myself. To me, it's foolish
because it's totally unenforceable. The people we don't want to post
logs - i.e. the trolls - still do so on their various websites,
meaning that little is achieved with the policy other than giving ops
a good reason to ban troublesome users. There was however little
consensus to change the policy when discussions were held maybe a year
ago, so nothing was altered, and we continue to enforce the policy as
best we can.
S
--
Sean Whitton / <sean(a)silentflame.com>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
Greetings,
The IRC Group Contacts decided last year to hold a surgery every three
months where general IRC matters could be brought up for discussion in
an environment in which IRC people able to put those into action
(which includes all the contacts themselves) were present and
involved. Regrettably it took just over a year for the second meeting
to be organised, but this pattern will not be repeated!
Therefore we invite you to visit
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Group_Contacts/Meetings/August_2009>
and sign up for the meeting if you are someone interested in how IRC
runs and especially if you are responsible for one or more channels.
That page will shortly contain procedural information on how we intend
to structure the meeting to get the most out of it. For convenience, I
shall note that the meeting is at 1900Z on 3rd August 2009 in
#wikimedia-irc-meetings on freenode.
Yours,
Sean Whitton (seanw on IRC)
For the IRC Group Contacts
I have posted this message to the main public mailing lists to which I
subscribe and would appreciate circulation of the meeting's existence
to as many other languages/projects as possible as this is open to all
- but please note that the meeting will be held in English.
--
Sean Whitton / <sean(a)silentflame.com>
OpenPGP KeyID: 0x25F4EAB7
(Sending this to wikipedia-l & OSM's legal-talk too)
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason<avarab(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason<avarab(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, what we should do is to author a document (on the wiki?) which
>> clearly explains why such terms which restrict redistribution and
>> fields of endeavor mean that free content projects like OSM can't use
>> the data and will have to keep using SRTM.
>
> Since nobody (especially someone with legal know-how) has offered to
> do this I've continued to my correspondence with NASA/USGS/METI using
> my own know-how and miscellaneous bits I've scraped from the recent
> ASTER threads on this list for support.
>
> Below is an E-Mail I just sent to the NASA/USGS/METI people I'm
> corresponding with. I won't include the snippets I'm replying to since
> I haven't had permission to publish them, instead I'm going to replace
> them with little summaries of the original content. My summaries are
> one-liners while the originals are a few paragraphs so obviously
> information is lost in the process:
>
>> [What's this public OpenStreetMap forum you're referring to?]
>
> It's being discussed on the main OpenStreetMap "talk" mailing list
> (and some other foreign language lists, e.g. the German one). Here's a
> list to the thread I started there:
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/thread.html#38235
>
> It's a public mailing list so you could sign up if you'd like, or
> continue corresponding with me and I could ferry information
> back-and-forth.
>
> In any case I'll be submitting what I send to you to the
> aforementioned mailing list, but I won't quote any remarks from you
> (@nasa.gov/@usgs.gov people) unless I have explicit permission to do
> so. So I'll modify this E-Mail so that e.g. the paragraph I'm replying
> to now will be replaced by something like "[Where is this being
> discussed?]" before I post it. But that's bound to cause confusion so
> having permission to quote you when appropriate would be better.
>
> I was hoping that someone with more legal knowledge would be willing
> to chime in but that hasn't happened already. I'm just a mapping
> hobbyist but I'll try to explain what would be about acceptable terms
> for open source/free software projects the best I can.
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038327.html
>
>> [Perhaps your intended use of the ASTER data is supported, e.g. if you derived tiles intended for some mapping software that would not be considered redistribution of the original product an could be pushed downstream]
>> [However if you were intending to distribute the canonical ASTER data as-is that would be in violation of the terms]
>
> I think I've correctly read between the lines of the download
> agreement in assuming that the purpose of that clause is to avoid
> Balkanization of the ASTER data, i.e. to make sure that NASA/METI will
> always be the canonical source for the source dataset.
>
> If the terms were changed to something like:
>
> You are not allowed to publicly distribute the original ASTER data
> files but any derived work can be redistributed freely with (only) the
> following restriction:
>
> If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective
> Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and
> give the original author (NASA/METI) credit reasonable to the medium
> or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if
> applicable) of the Original Author.
>
> Or something like that then the ASTER dataset could be used to its
> full potential by free data projects like OpenStreetMap, Wikipedia &
> others. But since there would be no restriction on the fields of
> endeavor that generated data could always be used to generate a DEM
> again, see a further explanation in this E-Mail:
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038327.html
>
> For instance here's a map where the OpenStreetMap data which is under
> the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) license has
> been combined with SRTM contours:
>
> http://osm.org/go/0CZyDpI--?layers=00B0FTF
>
> The CC-BY-SA license specifies (as do most free software licenses)
> that when you distribute derived works you can impose no further
> restrictions on the data. That's a pretty much a universal feature of
> popular free content licenses to avoid data Balkanization and ensure
> compatibility so that e.g. someone doesn't specify the additional
> terms that you can't use the derived work for some specific use (e.g.
> military), or that you can't use it on a Sunday. Such accumulated
> restrictions would quickly make the data unusable for everybody.
>
> Someone could take that map and generate a global DEM by analyzing the
> contour lines and distribute a global DEM derived from ASTER free of
> the original restrictions, thus circumventing the original limited use
> clause.
>
> But in reality nobody is going to go to all this trouble and nobody is
> going to be confused about NASA/METI being the original and canonical
> source of ASTER data. The best support for this claim is that today
> nobody is confused about NASA being the canonical source for SRTM
> data. Even though it's in the Public Domain which means downstream
> distributors don't even have to attribute NASA for it (although they
> nearly universally do anyway).
>
> In summary, not having restrictions on fields of endeavour will open
> the ASTER data to use by free content projects which otherwise
> wouldn't be able to use it, and nobody is likely to mistake NASA/ASTER
> as not being the canonical source for it, especially given
> attribution.
>
> As for why I've changed the attribution in the latter paragraph of
> those example license terms is pretty much lifted from the CC-BY 2.0
> license:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode
>
> The reason for changing the form of attribution from the current (When
> presenting or publishing ASTER GDEM data, I agree to include "ASTER
> GDEM is a product of METI and NASA.") is that asking distributors to
> include an exact string (in English) leads to what's called the
> Berkeley advertising clause problem (as pointed out on the list:
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-July/038237.html),
> see this page for an explanation:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#UC_Berkeley_advertising_clause
>
> Instead if distributors are merely asked to attribute the author
> (NASA/METI) that'll serve the same purpose in practice without the
> troubles associated with reproducing an exact string, e.g. the
> attribution can be translated or otherwise adjusted for the medium.
>
> For instance if the ASTER data was used by someone to extrapolate the
> position of mountain peaks and this derived data added to the
> OpenStreetMap database we could add a node with a source=ASTER tag,
> e.g.:
>
> http://api.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/308406749
>
> Which is appropriate for a relational dataset, as opposed to
> reproducing "ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA." for every
> object in it.
NASA/METI have updated their distribution terms with a FAQ in response
to my questions:
https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/lpdaac/about/news_archive/friday_july_24_2009
Unfortunately the new terms aren't new at all, and they still look too
restrictive to be incorporated into freely licensed datasets.
Hi All,
I have set up a wiki with the aim of providing a platform for people to find
solutions to issues of global importance like the Iranian election crisis,
the financial crisis, etc. I would like to invite you all to try it out. Any
feedback would be appreciated:
http://www.shapeyourworld.net/
Regards,
Ahmad Zaidi